Are hollowpoints over-rated?

[Z_Infidel]

444 -

This question is NOT meant to be sarcastic: So are you saying your choice for ammo in a defensive handgun would be a cast bullet? I think you have tried to make a case for it, but haven't come right out and said it, unless I just missed it in what you typed. ... just trying to follow along and learn...

 

[444]

I am talking about a defensive revolver that is on the marginal side, like a .38 snub. Calibers where adequate penetration is a concern. Calibers where we are trying to balance maximum penetration with adequate damage along the way.
This isn't some radical idea, one of the most commonly recommended loads for the .38 snub is the Winchester 158 grain Lead Semi-Wadcutter HP. In this case we are using a soft, cast bullet.
Although I wouldn't hesitate to use a cast bullet for any application. Of course you get into the possible legal aspect of not using factory ammo and all that; but in theory, I would be more than comfortable using cast bullets in a self defense application in any caliber.

 

[355sigfan]

444 I appoligize for mocking you. I removed the portions of my post that were offending.

Now back to the subject. Humans and animals are built differently. I use cast bullets for bear protection. Why because penetration is more importation on bears. Theya re made of almost pure muscle and jhp's from handguns have a tough time getting deep enough. This is not the case with service calibers on people. The 9mm with good jhp's offers penetration equaling the best 45 acp loads. Its far from marginal. You can get loads that go from 12 to 18 inches. All you need is about 10 being a min and 16 being a max. Shooting someone with a 9mm cast bullet will leave a nice .355 caliber hole in them. Shooting them with a +p+ 127 Grain Ranger load will leave a nice .65 caliber hole in them 14 inches deep. .65 vs .355. Its not a hard decision.
Pat

 

[444]

It wasn't offending to me, feel free to speak your mind.

I of course disagree with you, but that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Let's just say that my experience differs from yours. Self defense ammunition is a personal choice for me as a civilian and I am going to base that choice on my own experiences.

 

[Sean Smith]

I suspect that, like most THR "debates," most people just show up with their a priori convictions and find ways to justify them ex post facto so they don't have to change anything they are doing.

Dang, that was alot of Latin.

I'd suggest that for marginal (by handgun standards) calibers, a flat-point solid bullet is probably the best choice. When you get to choose between feeble penetration and marginal expansion on one hand, and hopefully adequate penetration on the other, the expanding bullet doesn't look so good.

On the other hand, it seems a bit silly for somebody to say, "I shot some critters once, so I know better than almost every law enforcement agency in the U.S. what sort of ammo to use on humans," when we are talking about calibers like 9x19, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Do cops using it make it automatically right? No. But you'd have to think cops are almost universally mentally retarded to belive that they'd be almost universally duped into adopting hollowpoints.

I'd also suggest that what you should use on a 500 lb critter may not necessariy translate into what you should use on a 180 lb human. Apples and oranges comes to mind here.

 

[444]

Well, one thing you are conveniently leaving out of the discussion is the fact that 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are not generally considered hunting calibers. Sure, they are used by some as such, in fact I have taken a number of varmints with the 9mm and .45 ACP, but they really don't apply to my post. First of all, many if not most autoloaders in those calibers wouldn't feed cast bullets with very large meplats approaching full bullet diameter; which I pointed out in my very first post. Secondly, maybe I am making a huge error here, but I dont' believe that MOST civilians who carry concealed handguns, carry full sized service pistols. Of course many do, but I doubt that MOST do. Therefore, it is important to decide what bullets will give adequate performance out of small handguns with short barrels.
I fully realize that this thread is not limited to a discussion of small handguns with short barrels, but I can't see why that topic can't also be discussed since it effects many of us and also fits into the broad catagory of the original question. As I also previously pointed out, in some of the larger calibers, hollowpoints are fine. They certainly enhance these cartridges effectiveness. However, there are also cartridges that I feel are harmed by the use of hollowpoints and I don't think you can make a blanket statement that a hollowpoint bullet is ALWAYS the best choice. And, in revolvers at least, there are other alternatives to FMJ that have been proven to work effectively.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the parallels between hangun bullets used for hunting and handgun bullets used for personal defense. Obviously I see the two as being very closely related and I guess I am not open minded enough to see how it is vastly different. Of course you can exaggerate by talking about 500 pound animals instead of dealing with 180 pound animals, however, what would work on a 500 pound animal would certainly work fine on a 180 pound human although I don't think it would be the best choice for the job.

"I suspect that, like most THR "debates," most people just show up with their a priori convictions and find ways to justify them ex post facto so they don't have to change anything they are doing."

I of course agree with the first sentence. Obviously we show up to this thread with prior opinions on the subject; otherwise we would have nothing to post. However I disagree with the second sentence. We found ways to justify our positions long ago; that is how we arrived at those opinions.

 

[Jim March]

A lot of this is about stopping quadrupeds versus bipeds.

If it's got thick skin, thick bone and is on four legs, then first you've got to punch deeper to reach vitals on a fore or aft shot (esp. a charging dangerous critter) and second, you've got to do a lot of mechanical damage to knock it over because of the four legs (it's more stable).

Humans have thinner hide, weaker bones, easier to knock over BUT if they've got a gun, they're still very damned dangerous when downed!

So for a charging 250lb black bear, you may need to punch 30+ inches on a chest shot. That means a heavy hardcast max-power 357Mag, or a 44Mag "hunting type hollowpoint" that doesn't expand all that fat (like the XTP).

To stop a charging 250lb crack addict shooting at you with a stolen gun, you need to punch 12" - 14" or so BUT do a broader swath of damage so as to drop the blood pressure and make him pass out, or at least screw up his aim.

Upshot: even where the target weight is in the same ballpark, the ammo needs are significantly different.

 

[Majic]

As they say, "there is no magical bullet". There are various designs today that can acheive the same outcome. Today the hollowpoint is touted as the bullet needed for most purposes. Long before the hollowpoint was developed cast bullets served in all situations quite well (even the so called lowly roundball). Any bullet, no matter the design, must penetrate to disrupt blood and/or air flow or damage the CNS to stop the intended target. No design is optimal for all purposes, and all designs can fail. I think you have to carefully choose a hollowpoint based on your shooting platform as varying speeds affects it's performance, but it all comes down to a matter of choice. If I can't find a hollowpoint that suits my requirements then I will choose a cast design in a SD applications. Otherwise the cast bullet fills all roles I asks of it. That's one of the reasons I prefer a revolver so to take advantage of all bullet designs, but I rely heavily on cast bullets.

We all agree to disagree.

 

[444]

Or, the black bear is standing broadside to you and the 250 pound crackhead is shooting at you from behind a wall. The need for penetration depends on the shot, not the target (within reason).
The method it uses to kill is identical: man or beast. Dropping B/P and all that is exactly the same. There isn't some other magical way animals die.

I think you would be hard put to get 30" of penetration out of a hollowpoint.

 

[Mute]

While I agree that both for hunting and SD you want to have an instant stop, most hunting situations would find it acceptable (not preferred) to kill the prey without an instant stop as long as the animal can be killed quick enough to be trackable. That won't get the job done in a self defense situation.

A whitetail that dies 2 minutes later 500 yards away, while not ideal is something a hunter can live with. Apply that to a mugger with a .38 and I think you can see where the problem exists. Humans and animals may die the same way, but in self defense, killing isn't the primary objective. It may certainly be an eventual outcome, but instant cessation of hostile activity what is needed.

 

[444]

I don't disagree with the idea that if a whitetail deer takes five mintues to die and runs two miles in the process, it really isn't that big of a deal. I also agree that we want and need an armed assailant to cease hostilites instantly.
However, this is the stuff of fairly tales because the chances of you making that brain shot, or severing his spinal cord up high in the neck area are very slim. Otherwise in the vast majority of shootings, the guy doesn't die instantly, he is physically able to continue the fight. He may decide not to, his mind may tell him to stop and avoid further injury, but physcially he is capable of continuing and he very well might actually do that. The legendary Miami shootout is a good example of this.
In summary: with handguns, what we want/need and what we get are two entirely different things. Think about this, how many people survive gunshot wounds ? How many people die in surgery at a trauma center ? How many die in the ER before they get to surgery ? How many die in the ambulance on the way to the ER ?
Now realize that every one of these people had survived the gunfight and has been alive for perhaps 10-15 minutes minimum after they have been shot to even make it to an ambulance (someone hears the shots and calls 911, the call is switched here and there while the dispatcher gets the information, the call is sent to the ambulance, the ambulance responds from whereever it is to the scene, the ambulance crew makes sure the shooting is over before going in, they do a brief accessment, load the patient onto the gurney, push the gurney back to the ambulance and pretty much every bit of this took place after the shooting stopped).
The paramedics and police are the only ones that see the ones DRT, and they didn't nessessarily just fall over dead as soon as the trigger broke. Any patient seen by an hospital has survived the gunfight by a wide margin.